Burlington council advances 'safe-zone' law for women's clinics

May 21, 2012

Jill Krowinski (right), director of public affairs for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, listens Monday to Kevin Ryan speak against a proposed 35-foot protest buffer zone around a clinic on St. Paul Street in Burlington as the Burlington City Council took public comment. / GLENN RUSSELL, Free Press

Written by

Related Links

A law designed to protect patients and staff from protesters at Burlington’s reproductive care clinics moved forward Monday night in the City Council, proceeding to the Ordinance Committee for refinement.

The preliminary version of the proposed ordinance, which would establish a 35-foot safety buffer around those clinics, garnered support of 13 councilors. One voted against.

Legal, emotional and spiritual arguments for and against the measure aired for more than an hour during the public comment period at Contois Auditorium.

Testimony alternated between those who advocated for women’s free access to health services, including abortions, and those who asserted their right to advise against them.

Although roughly equal in vocal support, the resolution entered the agenda backed by 10 co-sponsors on the council.

Ordinance Committee member and Councilor Vince Dober, R-Ward 7, supported the resolution — in as much as it could preserve guarantees of free speech.

“We’re going to have our work cut out for us,” said Dober, who describes himself as pro-choice. “This is going to be a tough one.”

Decelles said the council needs more solid evidence that protests had disrupted or intimidated visitors, as claimed, at the Planned Parenthood of Northern New England clinic and office on St. Paul Street.

Decelles also termed the measure a selective, “spot-zoning” solution that doesn’t address other forms of protest; he offered the Occupy Vermont demonstrations outside Citizens Bank as an example.

Councilor Norm Blais, D-Ward 6, drew a sharp distinction between the personal tensions accompanying a clinic visit — and the act of cashing a check at a bank.

Bram Kranichfeld, D-Ward 2 said the measure is necessary because current legal tools, such as laws against unlawful trespass, “are reactive, not preventative.”

Many of the proposed law’s opponents said religious convictions motivated their demonstrations.

Mary Hahn Beerworth of Fairfax, executive director of Vermont Right To Life Committee, said in an interview Monday that she is unfamiliar with the language of the proposed ordinance, but it appears to be singling out abortion opponents, many of whom are Christians.

“I feel very confident that nothing illegal is going on,” she told the Burlington Free Press before the City Council meeting. Members of her organization typically engage in “informational picketing” on the third Saturday of each month — but do not actively engage staff members, volunteers or patients, Hahn Beerworth added.

A different, more loosely organized group, “Forty Days for Life,” Hahn Beerworth said, converged on the clinic on Wednesdays, when she said abortions take place. “That’s probably when tensions run the highest,” she said. “This is a group that passionately believes it needs to be there.”

Agnes Clift of South Burlington, a Forty Days for Life member, said the group’s presence at Planned Parenthood had a single, practical goal: “We hope that women will reconsider and find hope.”

Other members of the group described their demonstrations as peaceful and respectful of the clinic’s patients and staff.

“What we’re offering is help to these women,” Bridget Mount of St. Albans said. “We have tried to show nothing but love.”

Burlington police Deputy Chief Andi Higbee has said that officers have responded twice to reports of “aggressive protesting.” No tickets or arrests resulted from the police presence, Higbee said.

Supporters of the resolution characterized the protests as verbally and physically confrontational, and too close to intimidation tactics for comfort.

“It’s come to the point where we need help with this,” said Jill Krowinski, who directs public affairs for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.

Several speakers at Monday’s meeting cautioned that the proposed ordinance might not meet constitutional standards for protecting free speech.

(Page 3 of 3)

Earlier in the day, Cheryl Hanna, a professor at Vermont Law School who specializes in constitutional law, said the resolution likely would hold up to legal challenges.

A federal district court in Massachusetts recently upheld a similar ordinance, citing its restrictions on speech as “content-neutral,” she said: “The language used is that the law would be ‘a valid regulation of time, place and manner’ — but not the substance of protest.

“The government’s rationale in this case is that it’s trying to protect welfare and safety — not the suppression of speech, but the secondary effects of what takes place at that place and time,” Hanna said. “There’s still a way for people opposed to abortion to get their word out.”

Hanna continued: “The open question is whether or not the current Supreme Court, if one of these cases gets there, would abide by that precedent, or would it take a more First Amendment absolutist position — and I just can’t answer that.”